zephen

26 ms·

511.
by zephen 10mo ago
> You can't only look at it from the perspective of a software engineer. This is absolutely true. OTOH, the "No true Scotsman" attitude that some display, that no real programmer would deliberately use Python, always says
512.
by zephen 10mo ago
> [conflicts in virtual environments are] most likely our problems, but we aren't the users that python is made for. We're support for those users. Maybe? I mean, if people aren't noticing these issues and you are, how ar
513.
by zephen 10mo ago
All true. But also: > It just turns out that homoiconicity is not hugely useful the large percentage of the time that you don't need metaprogramming, It turns out that metaprogramming, like anything else, has many possible levels, a
514.
by zephen 10mo ago
It's like burning fuel to till the soil so you can plant corn to make ethanol. Almost an inverse Kafka universe; there are tools that can empower you to work the system in such a way that the effects of the externalities are very diffu
515.
by zephen 10mo ago
People who make things don't make any money. People who claim that they are disrupting with disintermediation, but actually simply replace the old intermediary with their own? Those people get filthy rich. People who _should_ be making
516.
by zephen 10mo ago
> My observation is that in both cases people were mostly wrong and required strict reviews and verification, with the exception of those who did Great Work. Sure, but LLMs allow people to be wronger faster now, so they could conceivably
517.
by zephen 10mo ago
Not sure why this is being downvoted. It accurately and succinctly describes a likely reason for a _feeling_.
518.
by zephen 10mo ago
There are some issues with this. 1) For things made with LLMs: 1a) The fact that older versions aren't online forever. You literally might never be able to put the original prompt in and get the same result. 1b) A minor change i
519.
by zephen 10mo ago
I get that. But, as discussed in some other threads, the leverage provided by the LLM allows the miscreant to inundate you with slop by only pressing a few buttons. And rejection is work. So they can produce more slop, requiring more rejec
520.
by zephen 10mo ago
Upvoted because this is true, but we need to establish coping mechanisms for this. For example: "Sorry, yes, I know the report is due tomorrow, but I don't have time to review it again because I wasted 2 hours on the first version
521.
by zephen 10mo ago
> Granted the tech allows people I dont trust to generate a lot more bs, a lot faster. But i just reject and move on with my life in that case. But even a rejection is work. So if they're generating more bs faster, they are generat
522.
by zephen 10mo ago
> Has this actually been tried? Yes, Thaler v. Perlmutter. I'm pretty sure, even though that's recent, that it fully comports with decades old law on patents, as well. I can't find an older case, but Thaler v. Vidal is a r
523.
by zephen 10mo ago
Yes, it's different. All these tools provide leverage to the author, but only one of these tools provides non-deterministic leverage.
524.
by zephen 10mo ago
> I don't really care if it's a person or the LLM getting it wrong, You're nicer than some of us. If it's an LLM getting it wrong, and it's not caught before it gets to you, then what value is the intermediary ad
525.
by zephen 10mo ago
The unstated elephant in the room is that you can't possibly know how much thought the originator has given to this. You can't know if it has been reviewed and checked for minimal sanity, or just chucked over the fence. So you hav
526.
by zephen 10mo ago
> This isn't always a great indicator. Right. Certainly not dispositive. > use VIM and the copy/paste the completed document into it. But he did mention tables. You'd think if they weren't just ASCII art, there&#
527.
by zephen 10mo ago
> If every iteration of a while-loop cost you a whole stack frame, then I'd be very rude about that language. Well, sure, but real programmers know how to do while loops without invoking a function call.
528.
by zephen 10mo ago
It virtue-signals that they're part of the hip functional crowd. (To be fair, if you are programming functionally, it is essential. But to flat-out state that a language that doesn't support isn't "serious" is a bi
529.
by zephen 10mo ago
> I read in private, build in private, learn in private. And the problem with that is self-doubt and arbitrariness. Certainly if you do it in public, you don't have doubt yourself. Everyone else will do it for you.
530.
by zephen 10mo ago
The article author claims that his new version is simpler than the old version. But the new version is really only simpler TEXTUALLY, because of the post-increment operators: push(val) { assert(!full()); array[mask(write++)] = val; } shift
531.
by zephen 10mo ago
It probably can't do that. But neither can most humans. I admit to being surprised at what it actually can do, pretty much all by itself. https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/12/the-ars-technica-ai-codin...
532.
by zephen 10mo ago
Agreed. The article author claims that the "don't waste an element" code is also more efficient, but that claim seems to be based on a hard-on about the post-increment operator, rather than any kind of dive into the cyclometr
533.
by zephen 10mo ago
> Losing all stale unprocessed data and leaving a ready empty buffer behind is often the desired outcome. Yeah, the Type 3 example could conceivably make it so that you intermix old and new data if you overflow, rather than just dumping
534.
by zephen 10mo ago
> It is not just a way of writing ring buffers. It's a way of implementing concurrent non-blocking single-reader single-writer atomic ring buffers with only atomic load and store (and memory barriers). That may or may not be part of
535.
by zephen 10mo ago
The middle approach is the only one that is not lock-free. The first approach is lock-free, but as the author says, it wastes an element. But here's the thing. If your element is a character, and your buffer size is, say, 256 bytes, a
536.
by zephen 11mo ago
It has minimal, very regular, syntax. Which is a strength in some aspects, and, although many lispers will never admit it, a weakness in others.
537.
by zephen 11mo ago
You just replied to someone who explained it was about the DRM, with 'nuh-uh." Pivot much? The rest of the capabilities were all being done for over a decade before HDMI came out, and quite well by some companies. Sure, firewire w
538.
by zephen 11mo ago
One or two??!? You've got to be kidding. How about 687? https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/
539.
by zephen 11mo ago
Thanks!
540.
by zephen 11mo ago
This is cool. I started to look at the wasm stuff, but all the documentation I found was so high-level as to be meaningless. What do you recommend for someone who would want to be able to create or read .wasm files?

More ›